- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-167/12 P: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Council v AY (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2010 promotion procedure — Consideration of comparative merits — Professional development — Success at examinations in the training programme for AST function group officials in the certification procedure for access to the AD function group — Distortion of evidence)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TA0167
62012TA0167
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
23.11.2013
Official Journal of the European Union
C 344/54
(Case T-167/12 P) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2010 promotion procedure - Consideration of comparative merits - Professional development - Success at examinations in the training programme for AST function group officials in the certification procedure for access to the AD function group - Distortion of evidence)
2013/C 344/96
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Jensen, acting as Agents)
Other party: AY (Bousval, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)
Re:
Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012, Case F-23/11 AY v Council (not yet published in the ECR), and seeking the partial annulment of that judgment.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012, Case F-23/11 AY v Council, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision by which the Council of the European Union refused to promote AY to AST grade 9 pursuant to the 2010 promotion procedure and in so far as it ordered the Council to pay all of the costs (points 1 and 4 of the operative part of that judgment).
2.Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.
3.Reserves the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 180, 27.7.2012.